[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Status of mozilla packages for debian 3.1 release

Adrian Bunk wrote:

Just for the sake of completeness, I downloaded the mozilla-1.5 original
tarball and used the following compilation options :

configure	--prefix=/usr/local/mozillaTry
		--enable-optimize='-O3 -march=athlon'

You know that -O3 usually produces slower code than -O2 ?

Maybe but as I'm not a mozilla expert, I simply used one of the flags someones gave in the *official* mozilla.org contrib build for enabling xft, Just replacing the "march" flag because I have an athlon.

Compilation problems usually don't show up on i386. The 68 kB patches in
the Debian package contain e.g. fixes for compilation on alpha, arm,
hppa and ia64.

Does your original tarball compile and work on these architectures?

No but how many users? There are probably more people annoyed by bugs reported (ugly look with non default themes, CRT-ALT-C/* and Search) than people complaining of not having mozilla for 68K :-) Anyway on 68K lynx is probably the only solution to have decent speed :-)

3) The CRT-ALT-C and Search '*' problem do not exist => those bug have
been *introduced* by the maintainer changes!!!

So comiling it myself give a better result than mozilla distributed
binaries but *ALSO* compared to debian packages.

That's not yet proved.

Yes it is :
1) The bugs exist : they have been reported by many people other than me but nobody seems to care, 2) I'm using the default gcc, with a normally installed debian unstable with default mozilla compilation switches, 3) Even if the compilation switchs used when compiling the debian package are faulty, then is a problem that belong to the maintainer,

If you only want to complain, be happy and go back to your kindergarten.

1) I want to let you know that the mozilla package is in a state that *for me* is not compatible with something that needs to be released soon 2) That given the maintainer way of handling bug reports it is going nowhere (see below)

If you want to improve the Debian package of Mozilla, it might help if you could isolate the problem why a self-compiled Mozilla works better than the Debian package for you.

	1) I fill bug reports that stay unanswered for month's,
	2) see other bug reports being treated with the same attention,
	3) see that the bug render mozilla hardly useable to read mail and news,

I'm rather not confident any further work will get any more attention.

FYI : I've sent in the past a patch for enabling PPPOA for PPPD that just sit in bug report with apatch tag for 291 days while people send mail to say thanks... So I know what a non answering maintainer means. (At least that particular problem is solved now ;-)).

So blame yourself (I mean as someone involved in debian releases) if peole get tired with non ansering maintainers by not educating/selecting carefully maintainers for critical packages...

My first suspect would be that your package is compiled with Gtk 1 while the Debian package is compiled with Gtk 2.

dpkg -l | grep libgtk2

ii  libgtk2.0-0    2.2.4-2        The GTK+ graphical user interface library
ii libgtk2.0-comm 2.2.4-2 Common files for the GTK+ graphical user int
ii  libgtk2.0-dev  2.2.4-2        Development files for the GTK+ library

So at least libgtk2 is installed. But you are right :

ldd /usr/local/mozillaTry/lib/mozilla-1.5/mozilla-bin
	libmozjs.so => /usr/lib/libmozjs.so (0x4002b000)
        libplds4.so => /usr/lib/libplds4.so (0x400aa000)
        libplc4.so => /usr/lib/libplc4.so (0x400ad000)
        libnspr4.so => /usr/lib/libnspr4.so (0x400b3000)
        libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x400e7000)
        libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x40138000)
        libgtk-1.2.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgtk-1.2.so.0 (0x4013b000)
        libgdk-1.2.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgdk-1.2.so.0 (0x40259000)
        libgmodule-1.2.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgmodule-1.2.so.0 (0x4028c000)
        libglib-1.2.so.0 => /usr/lib/libglib-1.2.so.0 (0x40290000)
        libXi.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXi.so.6 (0x402b1000)
        libXext.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXext.so.6 (0x402b9000)
        libX11.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so.6 (0x402c7000)
        libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x4038e000)
        libstdc++.so.5 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 (0x403b0000)
        libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x40468000)
        libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x40470000)
        /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)

But if this would be the problem, reverting the Debian package to Gtk 1 might cause serious problems in other packages like e.g. epiphany-browser.

Having mozilla packages almost unuseable for serious mail/news acitivity is *also* a serious problem : CTRL-ALT-*** not working and search/find not working for HTML pages is unacceptable... Again : how many people actually use the epiphany-browser?

Tradeoff should be done with user in mind not for packages hackers
of package maintainer pleasure.

Never mind, now
	1)You know there is a problem with the mozilla status
2) you can compile mozilla with my switches and gtk2 to see if the problem is indeed GTK2, 3) If effectively the problem is the useage of GTK2, then you have something to decide for the upcoming release,

Thanks for responding anyway,

  /  `                   	Eric Valette
 /--   __  o _.          	6 rue Paul Le Flem
(___, / (_(_(__         	35740 Pace

Tel: +33 (0)2 99 85 26 76	Fax: +33 (0)2 99 85 26 76
E-mail: eric.valette@free.fr

Reply to: